El jutge Castro sobre el cas Nóos: "I believe Infanta Cristina was responsible for the same crimes as Urdangarin."

PalmHe Judge José Castro He became famous throughout Spain when he decided to seat a member of the Royal Family, Infanta Cristina, in the dock for the first time. Eleven years later, now retired, he takes stock in the book The Nóos case. The full truth behind the trial that shook Spain., and maintains that the king's younger sister actively participated in and benefited from the crimes committed by Iñaki Urdangarin.

Years after the trial, the sentencing, and the clarification of responsibilities, the judge who attributed the same crimes to the Infanta as her husband as a necessary collaborator, goes further in an interview with Efe and points to her father: "He still thinks that the king organized this entire plot to benefit his daughter."

The book begins with a dedication: "To those who did not dare to do what they should have for fear of the repercussions of their own decisions, so that they reconsider as far as their conscience allows." Is this a direct message?

— It's not addressed to anyone in particular, but to everyone in general, and I include myself. It's an invitation for those of us who were involved in this case to reflect on whether we really did what we had to do.

Did you do what you were supposed to?

— Some lawyers might think the investigation could have been improved, but I'm ultimately satisfied with what I did. I modestly believe I fulfilled my duty.

What were the main obstacles?

— It was a very laborious investigation. When I decided to summon Infanta Cristina to testify as a defendant, there were at least 42 defendants in the case; this already hampered the investigation. There were hundreds of appeals and lawyers who used every resource, motions, nullities... I think I learned more procedural law in this case than in all the others.

Were your efforts aimed at making law and justice equal for all?

— I'm not investigating the Nóos case so that no one becomes convinced that the law and justice are equal for everyone. I'm investigating it because there's a semblance of criminal activity here, which is rife, and I'm extending it to the Infanta because I believe the Infanta actively participated in it: in the creation of Aizóon, in her case, in her involvement in it, and because she enjoyed all the defrauded money, but look where it came from, without knowing it was illicit money. Ultimately, the difference between the prosecutor and me is that the prosecutor believed in the Infanta's ignorance, and I believed in that ridiculous ignorance that I knew nothing about, couldn't believe, and therefore, knew the source of the funds she enjoyed for birthdays, parties, furniture...

During the investigation, King Juan Carlos said he didn't understand her actions, the Attorney General called him a "big bad wolf," the Prime Minister said the Infanta would be fine, and there was even a "manual for saving the Infanta." Did you really not feel pressured?

— I believe these were strategies, like Mr. Roca's calling me to a meeting. I have interpreted these statements as legitimate. For the king to say "I don't understand this judge" is because he is the father of a defendant, and I believe he has every right in the world to complain as he sees fit. The Torres Dulce case had a comical quality that day, and the Prime Minister's was prescient. Apparently, he had a crystal ball and was already telling him how the matter would be resolved. And as for the prosecutor, it's legitimate to disagree, but I regret that a war was waged when he wrote that manual accusing me and the magistrates of abominable things. This is unpleasant. Forms must be maintained; this has gotten out of hand.

In the book, he tells of this appointment that the Infanta's lawyer, Miquel Roca, suggested to him. Why?

— Putting me in a very, very dangerous situation for me. Thank goodness I realized it and didn't accept it. In my opinion, it was a trap, but not pressure. It was a full-blown trap. I said no, and that was that.

Can you make peace with prosecutor Pedro Horrach?

— I think we're both very happy living on our own. This was a break from cohabitation.

Given the many obstacles to summoning the Infanta, did you at any point consider letting it be?

— My belief, which has not been fully accepted, is that the Infanta was responsible for the same crimes as her husband as a necessary accomplice. It has then been reduced to a possible necessary accomplice for two tax offenses, which the sentencing court also failed to consider.

Do you disagree with the ruling?

— What counts is what the Court says. I believe there's freedom to comment on rulings, to disagree with them. And naturally, I disagree.

Is the elephant in the room in the Nóos case King Juan Carlos?

— In the book, I state this as my opinion, but I haven't stated anywhere in the case that the king had any kind of responsibility in the case. I haven't stated this because I can't comment on the king when neither I nor anyone else was competent to investigate him. Of course, I thought, and still think, that the king orchestrated this whole scheme to benefit his daughter and son-in-law. But I have absolutely no proof, and that's nothing more than a personal opinion that I held at one time and, since we're very square, I continue to hold.

He is part of a group of jurists from the Balearic Islands who are calling for the royal immunity to be removed from the Constitution.

— Yes, I'm not the architect; we're just one of the many. Coinciding with Christmas, we asked the Prime Minister to recommend that the King renounce his inviolability in his speech. His renouncing it has no practical consequences because the King has no legislative, let alone constitutional, powers. But it would be a very important step for the Constitutional Court to develop a new interpretation of this third paragraph of Article 56, so that it refers exclusively to acts inherent to the King's office, which are the only ones that should be inviolable.